Cargando…

Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?

BACKGROUND-AIM: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. According to the ADA 2020 guidelines, individuals with unstable glycemic control should be monitored every three months by measuring glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). The aim of this study was to evaluate the demand adequa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Delgado, José Antonio, Bauça, Josep Miquel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Communications and Publications Division (CPD) of the IFCC 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7941057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33753977
_version_ 1783662077893672960
author Delgado, José Antonio
Bauça, Josep Miquel
author_facet Delgado, José Antonio
Bauça, Josep Miquel
author_sort Delgado, José Antonio
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND-AIM: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. According to the ADA 2020 guidelines, individuals with unstable glycemic control should be monitored every three months by measuring glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). The aim of this study was to evaluate the demand adequacy for HbA1c in the monitoring of patients with diabetes mellitus with a highly unstable glycemic control. METHODS: Retrospective observational study (2016-2019). All HbA1c tests from individuals ≥18 years requested by hospital physicians were considered. Highly unstable glycemic control was defined as HbA1c≥10.0%, and their monitoring was classified as: optimal, out of recommendations (if>3months) and lack of monitoring if no further HbA1c measurement was performed by the laboratory. For individuals classified as lack of monitoring, medical records were reviewed and further re-classified as: [1] due to patient’s responsibility, [2] attributable to the requesting physician, [3] monitored by POCT, [4] unfeasibility of monitoring or [5] referral outside our area for follow-up. RESULTS: During the assessed period, 1,156 patients had an HbA1c value≥10.0%. 67.5% of them were monitored either in the clinical laboratory or as POCT (33.7% optimal monitoring), whereas 21.0% patients were not monitored due to preventable situations. CONCLUSION: Lack of monitoring due to physician’s reasons or patient’s responsibility highlights the urgent need for an improvement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7941057
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Communications and Publications Division (CPD) of the IFCC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79410572021-03-21 Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met? Delgado, José Antonio Bauça, Josep Miquel EJIFCC Research Article BACKGROUND-AIM: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. According to the ADA 2020 guidelines, individuals with unstable glycemic control should be monitored every three months by measuring glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). The aim of this study was to evaluate the demand adequacy for HbA1c in the monitoring of patients with diabetes mellitus with a highly unstable glycemic control. METHODS: Retrospective observational study (2016-2019). All HbA1c tests from individuals ≥18 years requested by hospital physicians were considered. Highly unstable glycemic control was defined as HbA1c≥10.0%, and their monitoring was classified as: optimal, out of recommendations (if>3months) and lack of monitoring if no further HbA1c measurement was performed by the laboratory. For individuals classified as lack of monitoring, medical records were reviewed and further re-classified as: [1] due to patient’s responsibility, [2] attributable to the requesting physician, [3] monitored by POCT, [4] unfeasibility of monitoring or [5] referral outside our area for follow-up. RESULTS: During the assessed period, 1,156 patients had an HbA1c value≥10.0%. 67.5% of them were monitored either in the clinical laboratory or as POCT (33.7% optimal monitoring), whereas 21.0% patients were not monitored due to preventable situations. CONCLUSION: Lack of monitoring due to physician’s reasons or patient’s responsibility highlights the urgent need for an improvement. The Communications and Publications Division (CPD) of the IFCC 2021-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7941057/ /pubmed/33753977 Text en Copyright © 2021 International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is a Platinum Open Access Journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Delgado, José Antonio
Bauça, Josep Miquel
Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?
title Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?
title_full Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?
title_fullStr Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?
title_full_unstemmed Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?
title_short Monitoring of Diabetic Patients with Poor Glycemic Control. Are International Recommendations Met?
title_sort monitoring of diabetic patients with poor glycemic control. are international recommendations met?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7941057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33753977
work_keys_str_mv AT delgadojoseantonio monitoringofdiabeticpatientswithpoorglycemiccontrolareinternationalrecommendationsmet
AT baucajosepmiquel monitoringofdiabeticpatientswithpoorglycemiccontrolareinternationalrecommendationsmet